Don... the United States emancipated itself from England due to a few extremely small taxes. I believe the tax back then was something like 3%? You may argue that it was due to taxation without representation... but the fact of the matter is... even within a democracy you aren't actually represented. The majority of Americans do not believe in taxes (except the poor that just want to rob the wealthy).
That's the issue, if the US. government shouldn't tax, it shouldn't have been taking debt. Since that is no longer an option, it's either taxing (combined with budget cuts), or... Well I think it would be ostentatious trying to estimate what would happen if the US. would find itself unable to pay its debts. There's as many possible scenarios as there are people thinking of them. Anything between a short recession and a global economical anarchy are plausible to some extent.
I completely agree about the debt. However, the way to reduce debt is an extremely heated argument over here.
Conservatives: Cut Spending
Liberals: Raise Taxes
Moderates: Both
I personally think some taxation is necessary, yes. However, I do not think the government has the right to take my money and give it to people in California, Kentucky, Texas, etc. I believe in regional governments rather than federal.
This would be like you living in Finland and all your tax dollars going to benefit Spain?
That's the issue, if the US. government shouldn't tax, it shouldn't have been taking debt. Since that is no longer an option, it's either taxing (combined with budget cuts), or... Well I think it would be ostentatious trying to estimate what would happen if the US. would find itself unable to pay its debts. There's as many possible scenarios as there are people thinking of them. Anything between a short recession and a global economical anarchy are plausible to some extent.
but every country takes debt without raising taxes or slashing budgets to bare bones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Thats the thing though proletaria... you are all hard over big government. I'm not :D.
This is where you're mistaken and woefully so. It doesn't take a "big," government to do what they should be doing. There are plenty of useless tripe programs and departments to be trimmed and eliminated. What the government should do (ie. provide adequate infrastructure, defense, educaiton, and healthcare for citizens to get a chance at their own success story) is something they've never had a chance to do because of right-wingers demonizing the entire concept of federal government. Meanwhile, the ever-helpful lefties have sought to pass anything that might be psudo-progressive in nature and have concocted us a nightmare of addons we never needed.
It's as though the country always needed glasses, but the right said it was too expensive. So we've augmented EVERY other sensory organ except the eyes to try and make up for it. History has shown us, that simply won't do.
Some people in this country believe that they would need to pony up all but the shirt on their backs to have these things. Overwhelming numbers of examples in Europe have proved this isn't so. Economists know that this isn't so. Politicians who aren't bought out by plutocrats know this isn't so. And yet, the same tired crap the right has been parroting since the 1800's is still with us today.
I got my PhD in US History and began teaching long before any of this Reganomical junk ever made it into the system. I remember the days when wealthy CONSERVATIVES were perfectly content to pay 3x and more the present rate in federal income tax and capital gains, admired the government for building the roads, bridges, funding police, fire fighters, the postal service, military, etc. They felt that their politicians compromising for pragmatic goals was noble and even the most die-hard repubs I met in the 70s couldn't deny the greatness of Apollo 11 for all of humanity.
Today the "center," has shifted hard-right. The economic crash is, in no uncertain terms, a construct of Reganomic policy and the capitulation of the left (the Clinton admin killed glass steagall). I can't say how long the trend will continue, but it's quite apparent that nobody on the left is satisfied with this status quo. What remains to be seen is just how satisfied (or complacent) the independent middle-ground is. Given the projections of healthcare costs, the projections for economic (and thus job) growth, and the prospect of a new generation of vets coming home: I doubt we can continue to hear about this big-gub'mint bogeyman much longer without seeing past the farce.
The case can be made for the government getting OUT of a lot of things, but that kind of argument should start from the basis of what can be realistically privatized, not a bog-standard "the government is too big," statment that lends absolutely no credential what-so-ever to what might be justly cut and cropped. Blanket statements like that simply allow the corrupt and the corrupting influences that be to take a wild stab ay everything that doesn't make them a profit.
First... i'm not sure your figure about conservatives being content paying 3x the federal income tax is accurate... AT ALL. I could not afford to pay 3x my federal income tax and i'm paying little due to being a single bread winner and having a daughter. If I had to pay 3x the federal income tax I would be homeless....
As for my dad, he is one of the lucky group that pays 30-32% income tax. X3 that would be 90% income tax... pretty sure he wouldn't be happy.
Lets lower it alittle big more to the average per capita and say 25% income tax ... X3 thats 75%. Who the fuck wants to pay that?
Those who paid 3x the going rate were those would could afford it, not those in the middle class who currently shoulder a greater burden compared to growth and wealth. I think you should educate yourself about how our tax system works:
Those who paid 3x the going rate were those would could afford it, not those in the middle class who currently shoulder a greater burden compared to growth and wealth. I think you should educate yourself about how our tax system works:
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
Also, I should congratulate you for completely avoiding the rest of my points. Well done.
Educate myself on how my tax system works.... Its plain and simple really. We have a progressive tax system. This means the more i make the more i pay. AKA getting punished for being successful.
While the discussion is not specifically about Wallstreet, it is about the issues that caused Operation Wallstreet. Very glad that we can have such open discussions.
Educate myself on how my tax system works.... Its plain and simple really. We have a progressive tax system. This means the more i make the more i pay. AKA getting punished for being successful.
So you're telling me you'd rather be in poverty to pay a lower percentage to the government than be incredibly wealthy and pay a larger portion of your earnings to the fed?
You'll have to show me how you come to that logical conclusion because I don't think I can fathom why. Nobody gets PUNISHED for being successful. They are simply inclined to pay back to society on which they built their success. No man is an island. Similarly, no man succeeds entirely on his own merits. If you went to public school, got an education, got to your job interviews on public roads, enjoyed the security of not being robbed on the way to work each day by highwaymen, and didn't fear invasion for a foreign country: You got a whole LOT of help from the government and from the society who will benefit from your tax dollars.
And for the record, I don't promote a grand return to post-ww2 tax rates. I used that as an example because (as you can see if you take a look at that wiki page) it is a historical fact. Personally, I think the tax brackets need to be tailored to the present economic situation we're in. It's clear that hosing any one quintile with a colossal tax hike is an awful idea. It's equally clear that many federal programs, operating on a pork-heavy diet for decades, need to be evaluated for fat-cutting and simple privatizing. When push comes to shove; however, it's clear that we need to close tax loopholes, end corporate subsidies, and marginally increase top-quintile taxation in some manner if we want to maintain the social programs we need to maintain a stable society and growing economy.
Public education is circling the drain, public infrastructure (roads and bridges for example) is in dire need of repair and revamping, the military budget is bloated beyond all reasoning, and we've got a bastardized healthcare scheme (a gift to insurance companies the world over) that's not going to help solve the quality of care or cost of care issues we have today. There are plenty of reasons to assume a position of relative-austerity, but taking it on the nose with the damage to vital public services is absurd.
Then wtf is wrong with a Flat tax proleteria? The rich are still contributing MORE to society?
When did I specifically mention a flat tax or that I was against it? (Hint: I didn't)
But, while we're on (yet another tangent to help you avoid the prescient issues I brough up earlier) the topic: It would depend on what kind of flat tax you were talking about ("true," flat tax, marginal flat tax, negative flat tax, etc) and if it were wage, income, or sales based (or some combination). I don't know of any flat tax proposal I particularly LIKE, but certainly some have more merit than others.
Am I going too far in assuming you have a link to said flat-tax proposal and can explain to me how it eradicates all our problems?
Then wtf is wrong with a Flat tax proleteria? The rich are still contributing MORE to society?
When did I specifically mention a flat tax or that I was against it? (Hint: I didn't)
But, while we're on (yet another tangent to help you avoid the prescient issues I brough up earlier) the topic: It would depend on what kind of flat tax you were talking about ("true," flat tax, marginal flat tax, negative flat tax, etc) and if it were wage, income, or sales based (or some combination). I don't know of any flat tax proposal I particularly LIKE, but certainly some have more merit than others.
Am I going too far in assuming you have a link to said flat-tax proposal and can explain to me how it eradicates all our problems?
I haven't crunched the numbers or even really looked into it much but Herman Cain is pitching a 9/9/9 tax. 9% Income - 9% Sales Tax and 9% Corporate.
My wife is from Peru ... which as I'm assuming you know is a Third world country with high income disparity. They use a 19% flat sales tax with NO income tax, and they are still a socialist state with high income redistribution.
I haven't crunched the numbers or even really looked into it much but Herman Cain is pitching a 9/9/9 tax. 9% Income - 9% Sales Tax and 9% Corporate.
Cain's plan is, coincidentally, not even popular with many republicans: "A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. By contrast, a taxpayer in the top 0.1% (who makes more than $2.7 million) would enjoy an average tax cut of nearly$1.4 million, increasing his after-tax income by nearly 27 percent. His average effective tax rate would be cut almost in half to 17.9 percent. In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000."
My wife is from Peru ... which as I'm assuming you know is a Third world country with high income disparity. They use a 19% flat sales tax with NO income tax, and they are still a socialist state with high income redistribution.
I know there's a point in there somewhere... i'm just not seeing it. First of all, a pure VAT (that's your sales tax) is a grossly regressive tax. Secondly, I'm going to put your mind at ease and inform you we're not likely to follow in the monetary footsteps of our Peruvian amigos.
To the proletaria discussion: I believe we have a pretty similar issue in Canada (since we copy you guys on everything mostly, hell even our (currently) conservative government did stimulus when you guys did)... but our problem is at a much smaller scale... so not as big of a deal. I should say though that I see TONS of infrastructure work everywhere here in Vancouver... it's actually annoying lol. But probably better than unemployment and economic crash...
To the proletaria discussion: I believe we have a pretty similar issue in Canada (since we copy you guys on everything mostly, hell even our (currently) conservative government did stimulus when you guys did)... but our problem is at a much smaller scale... so not as big of a deal. I should say though that I see TONS of infrastructure work everywhere here in Vancouver... it's actually annoying lol. But probably better than unemployment and economic crash...
Set to an even economic scale, our stim package was small by comparison. Sadly, the anti-keynesian camp is out in full force here and our conservatives would rather punish Obama than help Americans out of unemployment with another spending bill geared toward infrastructure. I'd be thrilled by the annoyance of construction, repairs, and upgrades if it meant seeing more people working and the economy getting back on it's feet.
Debt itself is irrelevant for a sovereign state (it makes little difference by itself whether a state has zero debt or medium debt). A state can always fix it's deficit by increasing taxes (which somehow is an alien notion in the USA), making budget cuts or defaulting (which might not be as good an idea as it initially sounds), since they have the power to tax, and who's going to demand USA to pay its debts if they say that "sorry, no can do". Of course, that will inevitably lead to massive distrust towards the defaulting state.
Of course, no state in history has survived after their debt has passed their GDP. But rule 1# of history is that future does not necessarily always follow history.
I disagree that debt is irrelevant for a sovereign state, a nations credibility and credit worthiness becomes an issue of risk to other nations that hold that country's debt. This is why monetary systems fail and are recreated roughly every 27 years on average. Would you accept debt from Zimbabwe? Not likely. The US exasperated the USSR's sovereign debt to the point of collapse in the arms race, the Ruble failed, the USSR fell, and it was propped back up under *ahem* the new old leadership because the people had lost faith in the currency. Businesses during the transition literally traded with goods with each other to make ends meet just to be able to eat and pay for other services. At some point the world will say enough and take steps to reduce their intake of the US's debt.
That is precisely what is happening now with China, they are diversifying out of US debt and opening other channels with emerging markets. They are taking in US dollars and turning around and buying hard assets in the US so not to be stuck in our cash which they have been sterilizing for decades. History has proven that point again and again. As you yourself said "no state in history has survived after their debt has passed their GDP", that gives us and our current situation a probability of zero chance for success. Not good odds.
The other thing is that many people fail to realize is taxes are a burden to society and a means to rob the the wealth of it's citizens. Taxes are imposed, the proceeds are often allocated improperly on questionable needs. Essentially over taxation is effectively like a snake eating itself, productive capacity is not expanded by taxation. Real prosperity is created from demand which leads to growth, expansion, and ultimately hiring.
The other thing is that many people fail to realize is taxes are a burden to society and a means to rob the the wealth of it's citizens. Taxes are imposed, the proceeds are often allocated improperly on questionable needs. Essentially over taxation is effectively like a snake eating itself, productive capacity is not expanded by taxation. Real prosperity is created from demand which leads to growth, expansion, and ultimately hiring.
Real prosperity requires real government to help fulfill and make sure other citizens fulfill their social contract to one another. In turn that government must be funded with taxes, otherwise it is too feeble to act or too corrupted by it's benefactors to act responsibly.
The other thing is that many people fail to realize is taxes are a burden to society and a means to rob the the wealth of it's citizens. Taxes are imposed, the proceeds are often allocated improperly on questionable needs. Essentially over taxation is effectively like a snake eating itself, productive capacity is not expanded by taxation. Real prosperity is created from demand which leads to growth, expansion, and ultimately hiring.
Real prosperity requires real government to help fulfill and make sure other citizens fulfill their social contract to one another. In turn that government must be funded with taxes, otherwise it is too feeble to act or too corrupted by it's benefactors to act responsibly.
The (Locke's) social contract is in regards myself giving up freedoms in order to recieve the rewards the government offers. For example, I allow the government to police me and therefore the police create order in society.
How is it part of the social contract that I must give up my money to the government to disperse to people that do NOT contribute ANYTHING to society? For a contract to be considered legally valid under the UCC, both parties must offer consideration. My consideration under this contract is that I provide my tax dollars. The governments consideration is NOTHING that benefits me. Dispersing my money and creating income redistribution does not benefit me. You can TRY to argue that reducing poverty benefits society which in turn benefits me... but 90% of income redistribution is fucking broke. It goes to people that could work... that could have money but are selfish cunts like the female I cited earlier in this thread.
Do the roads that you drive on, the fire departments that keep your house from burning down, and the police that protect the streets not count as part of what Government does with your taxes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i get paid like crap but money has never really been an issue for me. and taxes seem fair as long as i dont look how much theyre taking lol.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I seriously must know what courses you and Proleteria instruct?
I completely agree about the debt. However, the way to reduce debt is an extremely heated argument over here.
Conservatives: Cut Spending
Liberals: Raise Taxes
Moderates: Both
I personally think some taxation is necessary, yes. However, I do not think the government has the right to take my money and give it to people in California, Kentucky, Texas, etc. I believe in regional governments rather than federal.
This would be like you living in Finland and all your tax dollars going to benefit Spain?
but every country takes debt without raising taxes or slashing budgets to bare bones.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
This is where you're mistaken and woefully so. It doesn't take a "big," government to do what they should be doing. There are plenty of useless tripe programs and departments to be trimmed and eliminated. What the government should do (ie. provide adequate infrastructure, defense, educaiton, and healthcare for citizens to get a chance at their own success story) is something they've never had a chance to do because of right-wingers demonizing the entire concept of federal government. Meanwhile, the ever-helpful lefties have sought to pass anything that might be psudo-progressive in nature and have concocted us a nightmare of addons we never needed.
It's as though the country always needed glasses, but the right said it was too expensive. So we've augmented EVERY other sensory organ except the eyes to try and make up for it. History has shown us, that simply won't do.
Some people in this country believe that they would need to pony up all but the shirt on their backs to have these things. Overwhelming numbers of examples in Europe have proved this isn't so. Economists know that this isn't so. Politicians who aren't bought out by plutocrats know this isn't so. And yet, the same tired crap the right has been parroting since the 1800's is still with us today.
I got my PhD in US History and began teaching long before any of this Reganomical junk ever made it into the system. I remember the days when wealthy CONSERVATIVES were perfectly content to pay 3x and more the present rate in federal income tax and capital gains, admired the government for building the roads, bridges, funding police, fire fighters, the postal service, military, etc. They felt that their politicians compromising for pragmatic goals was noble and even the most die-hard repubs I met in the 70s couldn't deny the greatness of Apollo 11 for all of humanity.
Today the "center," has shifted hard-right. The economic crash is, in no uncertain terms, a construct of Reganomic policy and the capitulation of the left (the Clinton admin killed glass steagall). I can't say how long the trend will continue, but it's quite apparent that nobody on the left is satisfied with this status quo. What remains to be seen is just how satisfied (or complacent) the independent middle-ground is. Given the projections of healthcare costs, the projections for economic (and thus job) growth, and the prospect of a new generation of vets coming home: I doubt we can continue to hear about this big-gub'mint bogeyman much longer without seeing past the farce.
The case can be made for the government getting OUT of a lot of things, but that kind of argument should start from the basis of what can be realistically privatized, not a bog-standard "the government is too big," statment that lends absolutely no credential what-so-ever to what might be justly cut and cropped. Blanket statements like that simply allow the corrupt and the corrupting influences that be to take a wild stab ay everything that doesn't make them a profit.
As for my dad, he is one of the lucky group that pays 30-32% income tax. X3 that would be 90% income tax... pretty sure he wouldn't be happy.
Lets lower it alittle big more to the average per capita and say 25% income tax ... X3 thats 75%. Who the fuck wants to pay that?
Wikipedia is your friend.
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
Also, I should congratulate you for completely avoiding the rest of my points. Well done.
Educate myself on how my tax system works.... Its plain and simple really. We have a progressive tax system. This means the more i make the more i pay. AKA getting punished for being successful.
I just wanted to put this out there.
Wikipedia is a very good friend indeed.
So you're telling me you'd rather be in poverty to pay a lower percentage to the government than be incredibly wealthy and pay a larger portion of your earnings to the fed?
You'll have to show me how you come to that logical conclusion because I don't think I can fathom why. Nobody gets PUNISHED for being successful. They are simply inclined to pay back to society on which they built their success. No man is an island. Similarly, no man succeeds entirely on his own merits. If you went to public school, got an education, got to your job interviews on public roads, enjoyed the security of not being robbed on the way to work each day by highwaymen, and didn't fear invasion for a foreign country: You got a whole LOT of help from the government and from the society who will benefit from your tax dollars.
And for the record, I don't promote a grand return to post-ww2 tax rates. I used that as an example because (as you can see if you take a look at that wiki page) it is a historical fact. Personally, I think the tax brackets need to be tailored to the present economic situation we're in. It's clear that hosing any one quintile with a colossal tax hike is an awful idea. It's equally clear that many federal programs, operating on a pork-heavy diet for decades, need to be evaluated for fat-cutting and simple privatizing. When push comes to shove; however, it's clear that we need to close tax loopholes, end corporate subsidies, and marginally increase top-quintile taxation in some manner if we want to maintain the social programs we need to maintain a stable society and growing economy.
Public education is circling the drain, public infrastructure (roads and bridges for example) is in dire need of repair and revamping, the military budget is bloated beyond all reasoning, and we've got a bastardized healthcare scheme (a gift to insurance companies the world over) that's not going to help solve the quality of care or cost of care issues we have today. There are plenty of reasons to assume a position of relative-austerity, but taking it on the nose with the damage to vital public services is absurd.
When did I specifically mention a flat tax or that I was against it? (Hint: I didn't)
But, while we're on (yet another tangent to help you avoid the prescient issues I brough up earlier) the topic: It would depend on what kind of flat tax you were talking about ("true," flat tax, marginal flat tax, negative flat tax, etc) and if it were wage, income, or sales based (or some combination). I don't know of any flat tax proposal I particularly LIKE, but certainly some have more merit than others.
Am I going too far in assuming you have a link to said flat-tax proposal and can explain to me how it eradicates all our problems?
I haven't crunched the numbers or even really looked into it much but Herman Cain is pitching a 9/9/9 tax. 9% Income - 9% Sales Tax and 9% Corporate.
My wife is from Peru ... which as I'm assuming you know is a Third world country with high income disparity. They use a 19% flat sales tax with NO income tax, and they are still a socialist state with high income redistribution.
Cain's plan is, coincidentally, not even popular with many republicans: "A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. By contrast, a taxpayer in the top 0.1% (who makes more than $2.7 million) would enjoy an average tax cut of nearly$1.4 million, increasing his after-tax income by nearly 27 percent. His average effective tax rate would be cut almost in half to 17.9 percent. In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000."
Tax Policy Center evaluation of Cain's 999 Tax Plan has all the details.
I know there's a point in there somewhere... i'm just not seeing it. First of all, a pure VAT (that's your sales tax) is a grossly regressive tax. Secondly, I'm going to put your mind at ease and inform you we're not likely to follow in the monetary footsteps of our Peruvian amigos.
D3 Channel: OnetwoD3
Set to an even economic scale, our stim package was small by comparison. Sadly, the anti-keynesian camp is out in full force here and our conservatives would rather punish Obama than help Americans out of unemployment with another spending bill geared toward infrastructure. I'd be thrilled by the annoyance of construction, repairs, and upgrades if it meant seeing more people working and the economy getting back on it's feet.
I disagree that debt is irrelevant for a sovereign state, a nations credibility and credit worthiness becomes an issue of risk to other nations that hold that country's debt. This is why monetary systems fail and are recreated roughly every 27 years on average. Would you accept debt from Zimbabwe? Not likely. The US exasperated the USSR's sovereign debt to the point of collapse in the arms race, the Ruble failed, the USSR fell, and it was propped back up under *ahem* the new old leadership because the people had lost faith in the currency. Businesses during the transition literally traded with goods with each other to make ends meet just to be able to eat and pay for other services. At some point the world will say enough and take steps to reduce their intake of the US's debt.
That is precisely what is happening now with China, they are diversifying out of US debt and opening other channels with emerging markets. They are taking in US dollars and turning around and buying hard assets in the US so not to be stuck in our cash which they have been sterilizing for decades. History has proven that point again and again. As you yourself said "no state in history has survived after their debt has passed their GDP", that gives us and our current situation a probability of zero chance for success. Not good odds.
The other thing is that many people fail to realize is taxes are a burden to society and a means to rob the the wealth of it's citizens. Taxes are imposed, the proceeds are often allocated improperly on questionable needs. Essentially over taxation is effectively like a snake eating itself, productive capacity is not expanded by taxation. Real prosperity is created from demand which leads to growth, expansion, and ultimately hiring.
Real prosperity requires real government to help fulfill and make sure other citizens fulfill their social contract to one another. In turn that government must be funded with taxes, otherwise it is too feeble to act or too corrupted by it's benefactors to act responsibly.
The (Locke's) social contract is in regards myself giving up freedoms in order to recieve the rewards the government offers. For example, I allow the government to police me and therefore the police create order in society.
How is it part of the social contract that I must give up my money to the government to disperse to people that do NOT contribute ANYTHING to society? For a contract to be considered legally valid under the UCC, both parties must offer consideration. My consideration under this contract is that I provide my tax dollars. The governments consideration is NOTHING that benefits me. Dispersing my money and creating income redistribution does not benefit me. You can TRY to argue that reducing poverty benefits society which in turn benefits me... but 90% of income redistribution is fucking broke. It goes to people that could work... that could have money but are selfish cunts like the female I cited earlier in this thread.